Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
You wanted a debate since not having a debate is tyranny. Let's have the debate.
About the bolded part - you don't seem to get Murray's research.
Blacks are according to their evidence simply not as capable as whites or asians (exceptions will exist). It would be wrong to pretend that they are and fund equal education for all. The main difference between races is not discrimination but IQ (something inherent within races, not what society imposed on them). So your claim about discimrination is menaingless, the econmic status of blacks is simpy a reflection of their cognitive disabilities.
Now, what do you plan to do about this societal problem?
> So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.
Trump's claims about migrants and rapists and Muslims were repeatedly aired on the media, proven wrong every day, from day one of the campaign. A large number of people still believed them.
And once again, a guy who does well-funded research, a university speaking tour, has mainstream (NYT, Atlantic, liberal icon Steven Pinker) support is not "in darkness"; a polite debate with a single online editor is not a "crap storm".
That was a good read. Many good points about Peterson's incessant, needless overcomplicating of verbiage. That said, much of the focus of this piece seemed to be Peterson's entire body of work and not as much his most recent book, which along with his YouTube appearances seems to make up the bulk of his current fame.
Bit confused with the last few pages of this thread, but am I right in thinking that the likes of entropy would consider me an Islamophobe because I absolutely despise religion and dogma?
That's true. But the impression I got from the article is that the "12 rules for life" (or whatever it's called) in essence is nothing more than basic self help packaged in difficult words ...
Consider this summary of principles from the end of 12 Rules for Life:
What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies, or do what you despise.
What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul.
What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life.
What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart.
What shall I do with when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.
These are pompous, biblical ways of saying: tell the truth, be true to yourself, see challenges as opportunities, set a good example, and, uh, give confident and long-winded lectures to your adoring crowd of fans
What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies, or do what you despise.
What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul.
What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life.
What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart.
What shall I do with when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.
These are pompous, biblical ways of saying: tell the truth, be true to yourself, see challenges as opportunities, set a good example, and, uh, give confident and long-winded lectures to your adoring crowd of fans
Based on the article and the few interviews of his I've seen (including the recent Bill Maher appearence you linked, the Newman interview, the interview with some asian guy where he's borderline implying that women are asking for sexual assault by wearing make up and stuff thus sexualizing the workplace. "or maybe not". "I think we should have a discussion about that".) the only way I can make sense of his fame is by the major drought conservative intellectualism is having atm which he at least appears to fill.
I think the reason why 12 rules for life has connected so broadly is because it seems to focus on personal responsibility as well as act as a response to what Peterson calls the post-modernist view that power and identity politics are intertwined. Peterson is basically promoting a more primal construct where male are allowed to be alpha-males again, which is the primary reason his popularity is soaring at the moment.
By definition, only 1 can be alpha.
(which would suggest that the overwhelming majority of his followers are fighting hard to obtain beta status)
(which presupposes that this terminology is valid for humans)
Yeah, it’s a completely meaningless phrase obsessed over by (usually young) insecure men with self-esteem issues. That’s a sizeable enough market, mind you.
This one is quite amazing:
I want to make a joke about Arbeit macht frei but I can't think of one. So I'll just point out that this thought leader doesn't know that this most famous quotation on the entrance of the most famous concentration camp directly contradicts him.
(edit: i'm referring to the video in this tweet, not the whole thread.)
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I want to make a joke about Arbeit macht frei but I can't think of one. So I'll just point out that this thought leader doesn't know that this most famous quotation on the entrance of the most famous concentration camp directly contradicts him.
(edit: i'm referring to the video in this tweet, not the whole thread.)
Last edited:
im the alpha lower case typer round these parts
Also quite a few grown adults, up to middle age.
Sure. It’s just that young men are more likely to be insecure and worried about how they are perceived by other people.
Tens of millions of beta males are celebrating him. This is true.
Both Alpha and Beta I would imagine. His schtick is well timed around the fumes of the MeToo movement.
I hate both terms. Bro culture walking around saying "alpha as feck" and a generation of misogynistic socially maladjusted young men raised on the internet where their social construct of the world lacks the consequence of shit talking a 6'4 220 pound dude who is as broad as he is tall, and who call anyone they disagree with a ****, or a beta.
These are the people I feel Peterson is appealing to. Whether it is his intention to pander to "alt-right" type people, or not, that's what he is doing. The internet is a wonderful place, but it's also the worlds largest echo chamber. Look hard enough and you can find any group of people you want to belong to, look hard enough and you can shut out any sort of competing or dissenting view.
At the risk of being a "get off my lawn" type, the internet and and now even more so, smart phones, have robbed these young men of meaningful and consequential social interaction, and they can't let go of that umbilical, while they rail against the emasculation of their generation. I'm not even that old, I went to HS in the 90's just as the internet was becoming a thing, and I went down that internet rabbit hole as well, obviously, I'm here! However, people from my (our) generation, at least had balance. I remember playing outside from dawn till dusk in the summers. I remember that my nintendo was awesome, but I didn't play it 18 hours a day. Now, kids live on their computers and consoles. PE is opt in in many places.
Peterson has definitely tapped into something, it's just kind of ugly, and his fix, whatever it might be, is a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
Also probably a way for those insecure men to try and simplify complex issues. People - and by extension life itself - are complex things, and so packing them into two or three different social 'groups' is basically a simple way for them to try and classify people.
From what I‘ve gathered so far I find it surprising that he managed to keep hinself in academia.
This is a long read but it does a good job of discussing the issues people have with Peterson: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
The same writer has a good article on Shapiro as well: https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher
Is it not a cruel twist of fate that the smartest people in the world are driving cabs, cutting hair, and frequenting football forums whilst the more stupid are lecturing at universities, writing best-selling books, and giving public talks worldwide?
Last edited:
These are great articles if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. They're myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
He's a bit like those pua's who get rich by peddling the dream of banging hot chicks to ugly dudes.
Alpha males..
feck outa here son.
Alpha males..
feck outa here son.
I guess some of the smartest people also lecture at universities, write less-read books and are invited to public talks much fewer people ever hear of. It's not like there aren't any academics or scholars beyond people like Peterson.
What a bizarre post.
I’m still waiting to see you explain how Shapiro didn’t literally mean ‘Arab people like to live in sewage’.
Shows how pointless measuring intelligence is, there’s a good chance that some of the brightest academics wouldn’t have a chance at learning the knowledge of London, have the creativity and dexterity to become a great hairdresser or the insight to understand why Pogba can work in a midfield two if he pulls his finger out.
I’d say they could probably do all of the above, if they devoted enough time to it.
His post was - I think - some sort of sarcastic reductio ad absurdum argument that anyone who expresses any doubts about any of Jordan Peterson’s work is trying to claim that they’re more intelligent/educated than he is.
I’m willing to accept that Jordan Peterson is more intelligent and well educated than me but I still think he talks a load of impenetrable nonsense and is a borderline misogynist. Being intelligent doesn’t make you a reasonable or kind person.
So was mine
The fact that some intelligent people decide to use their intellect to appeal to the gut of the masses in order to gain fame and inflate their ego doesn't make them dumb. It just makes them morally bankrupt arseholes.
We have this same movement in Holland with Thierry Baudet. He's also this new type of conservative (intellectual) with a PHD in something something and several best selling books to his name by the age of thirty. There's no question that the guy has a high IQ, same as there's no question he is a narcissistic shitbag of a person. I doubt he truly stands behind all the things he says, but he knows it appeals to a lot of disgruntled people who adore him for saying it. He basks in this adoration, his goal is this adoration.
It's the same for Shapiro when he says there is no real discrimination against black people. I'm quite sure he knows this isn't true, because he's not an illiterate hermit living in a small hut in the desert, but he knows his supporters will coo and scream his name in elation when he says it. He craves the adoration of the crowd. If he were funny I'm sure he'd want to be a stand up comedian.
Being smart and being a bad person isn't mutually exclusive. Most historical supervillains are probably very smart. Doesn't make them any better.
Last edited:
Could you elaborate on why you* think they're myopic or biased?
*or 'everyone else' for the minimal chance you haven't made that up.
This small piece from that article perfectly sums up the strategy of these so called great debaters:
Shapiro isn’t interested in discussing any of this seriously. Just look at how he distorted his questioner’s response about moose: he says “Why aren’t you a moose?” and when she replies “That’s different,” he interjects “That’s right, men and women are different.” She clearly said that species and gender are different (which they are, in that there’s a good argument for revising one of the categories but not for revising the other). But he tried to convince his audience that she had essentially conceded his point, by seizing on and spinning the word “difference.” (We call this “sophistry” rather than “logic.”)
It's a lot of spin and wordplay, but when you get down to it, it's chest thumping nonsense. It's actually not Shapiro that's stupid, it's people that can't see past stuff like this that are the problem.
Shapiro isn’t interested in discussing any of this seriously. Just look at how he distorted his questioner’s response about moose: he says “Why aren’t you a moose?” and when she replies “That’s different,” he interjects “That’s right, men and women are different.” She clearly said that species and gender are different (which they are, in that there’s a good argument for revising one of the categories but not for revising the other). But he tried to convince his audience that she had essentially conceded his point, by seizing on and spinning the word “difference.” (We call this “sophistry” rather than “logic.”)
It's a lot of spin and wordplay, but when you get down to it, it's chest thumping nonsense. It's actually not Shapiro that's stupid, it's people that can't see past stuff like this that are the problem.
I don't quite get the admiration people seem to have for Shapiro. Peterson I can sort of understand, judging by the little time I've spent listening to him and watching clips of him on youtube, but Shapiro is just an annoying little twerp.
Yeah, at least Peterson gives the illusion of having hidden depths.
your question is great if you disagree with Shapiro and Peterson politically. It's myopic, biased, and poorly written for everyone else.
I see what you're saying but frankly, I think the same whenever I hear those two speak. That's just them getting the same treatment they dish out to others which at least proves that they aren't the prophetic geniuses their fans portray them to be.
Mea culpa, sir. My feeble mind cant possibly comprehend the greatness of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Perterson.
I don't think Petersons message is in any way deep.
Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
Good and evil exists. People are fallible (sinners), but can improve their own lives and help to push the world towards the good, if they are willing to put in the work. That the most used story in the history of mankind. Thats why he sees so much value in literature from the bible to Dostojewski.
I guess it gives his followers a good feeling to be part of team "save the world" against team "evil neomarxists". He gives people on the right a home/identity, that don't feel represented by liberal mainstream culture. Religion loosing cultural significance opens up space for new actors to promote different conservative identities. Peterson is repackaging the message of religion into a secular from. The difference between a cultleader and a prophet (fig.) is marketing. I think Peterson is very eloquent, charismatic and confident. He is a very good communicator and that allows him to capture a sizable audience.
Pretty much this. Its an old story that works because it often gives purpose to the people that hear it, this is just the 2017/18 version.
But if people are surprised why it has appeal even outside of what you might call the alt-right (and the numbers seem to indicate that it does), you do need to reflect about what the current "liberal message" (for lack of a better definition) says to white men in particular about their place and especially mission in society. "Step aside" isn't much of a mission to live-up to, and doesn't translate to very much in your day-to-day life. Self-improvement does.
This is pretty much my view. He seems to be pretty knowledgable about the subject matter he talks about, which can at times be very interesting and at others a bit tedious. The main problem as I see it isn't Peterson, its the people who have latched on to him as some sort of guru of all things anti-liberal orthodoxy/victimhood culture/post-modernism etc. Those are all very interesting arguments from his end, but the fact that so many members of the right have suddenly gravitated towards him is bound to make him more controversial than problem solving.
I think that’s more or less on the money but Peterson’s message isn’t secular. He’s actually quite religious.
More like 'stop/don't be a cnut'.
I doubt any significant number of those white men go through life being victimized by black people or 'crazy SJW feminists'. They choose to live in an echo chamber of their own choosing and devote their energy to that victimhood culture where in their mind everything and anything is working to strip away their rights (privileges).
The 'liberals' are not responsible for what these white men choose to do with their own lives. It's a tad ironic that the alpha wannabes need a source of affirmation and guidance for their actions, kinda goes against the whole 'personal responsibility' so beloved by the right.